nikokespprfan

There is a mod for breaking symmetry: But I would support for it to become stock.

This is not my idea, it is @AbacusWizard's, @Laguna's and @Snark's. It was discussed somewhere in this thread, but it was not openly suggested. Currently there is (if I recall correctly) only the upper and lower atmosphere among the science situations. The suggestion is to devide Jool's atmosphere into the upper, middle, lower and deep atmosphere, and have science situations for them. This makes Jool a more interesting place to visit, (as going deeper can give you "moar science"). And that is, in my opinion, a big deal as it is the only gas giant in the game. Therefore saying: "yea it has no surface, but that doesn't mean Jool isn't an interesting planet" is a good thing. If you also make the deep atmosphere difficult to get to, (like with a high temperature curve), and add a contract, you just added an interesting challenge to the game, and made an entire class of planets more interesting to players. Because with this layout, players have an incentive to design a ship that can withstand a journey to the deep atmosphere of Jool, and actually go there. Here are the Posts in that thread concerning this topic: AbacusWizard:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/131120-biomes-for-jool/&page=2#comment-2396049 Snark:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/131120-biomes-for-jool/&page=2#comment-2396640 Laguna:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/131120-biomes-for-jool/&page=2#comment-2396724 Snark:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/131120-biomes-for-jool/&page=2#comment-2397056

Is it possible to use the strut code for this welding tool, without essentially creating a new part, though. For certain things that is preferable above struts. For example look at the second picture of this post: This guy needed 12 extra parts in order for his wings to be a coherent structure. In this case, that is not a bog deal (it's mostly ugly), but a mk 3 plane would need bigger wings, and we know some people like to scale up.

I think this should be in the form of a "welding" option alongside the "place", "rotate", "offset" and "root" tools, just so that things without attachment point (like structural wing pieces) can work with that as well. It is nice to have your custom wing be welded toroughly together instad of having a "tree of welds" holding it together.

All suggestions should be indexed now, sorry for the delay. As for the action groups/docking discussion, KSP need to have some way to change the action groups in flight, or something to tell the player how the actions groups are reordened when docking. I would suggest an app to do that, as it is the cleanest way to have UI windows. If I understand correctly, the altitude change meter would be a speed meter for each of the three dimensions? Have you got a link?

That's an interesting one, a lot of work though to remake all those IVA's, and add the necessary instruments to it.

Wait... isn't that already a thing? Because kerbals are shown in the tracking station, and all over the game they seem to be treated like ships. And if so, why is this approach never used, as this seems (to me at least) as a watertight way of making first person EVA possible. Just add an IVA that looks like a helmet, and put your kerbal in there. Although that would mean a kerbal model would be visible in this IVA, just as with all the other IVA's, that could obstruct the view and maybe mess with the animation of the kerbal itself. But I don't have enough knowledge about this stuff to know for sure.

And yet someone is doing that. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/118371-wip-free-iva-formerly-enhanced-iva-alpha-v003-2015-10-11/&page=10

Isn't there a contract asking you to bring a craft with certain parts to a certain area. you could make the area you space center and the part an asteroid (because that is what the game thinks they are), that should work, right?

You do the @ symbol, and then type enough letters of the name you want. The forum will give a list of possible candidate forumusers, and you have to click the one you want and there you go. I guess you have copy pasted it in, because then it doesn't work.

That is an annoying one for sure. I've experienced layering issues with the staging diagram and the exit button.

Welllll, Not really. The core is solid, yes. But you want to land on a surface. And that doesn't exist in a gas giant. The reason the core is solid is because the high forces from the atmosphere below. (heat=wiggglyness of molecules. More wigglyness, easier for molecules to break of from a crystal structure (solid) to loosly bound groups of molecules (liquid) that can slide past each other (flowing), which is called melting. Even more molecule wigglyness can lead to molecules entirely breaking off altogether (boiling) from the rest. Higher temperature -> more molecule wigglyness and more pressure -> less molecule wigglyness. If you want to scienticfically correct) The thing is, as you go deeper, these pressures will gradually increase. The transitions between gas, liquid and solid will be gradual too. So although there is a solid core, there is no surface to land on.

ahh, that's too bad. Altough I would like to argue about one point. Yes, Jool's atmosphere is an edge case, but also an unique edge case, in that it is the only gas giant atmosphere in the Kerbol system, and therefore, the only one in this educational game. With a little attention to Jool, SQUAD could change Jool's amosphere's status from "dangerous and not very interesting to explore" to "hey, a gas giant is different, but it makes it a very interesting place worth visiting". And in the end, after hours of coding on this edge case, adding a simple contract to explore Jool's atmosphere would lift it out of an edge case status (or at least a little bit).

For reference: here it is: In my humble opinion, it would be a great addition to add this piece of space exploration to the game, seeing as it has come up independently twice in a short amount of time.

I would suggest adding radiator panels to it too!

I'd suggest adding radiator panels to it too.

It doesn't take to long, there are only three fairing parts, the first option only takes two minutes to pull off.

That would be a nice addition IMO. In the mean time, you can paste the separator module into the .cfg of your fairings. When you then activate the fairing, the fairing will also separate. I tested it and it works quite well A second approach is to make three new parts by copying the fairings and then adding the separator module to the copied versions. That means that you have a set of fairings that does have a separator and a set that hasn't. Here is the code:

There was a thread a while back that proposed science biomes (or geomes, if you are bugged about the lack of life) in the outer reaches of the Kerbol system. That thread also has to deal with biomes on surfaceless bodies (namely Kerbol), but I can't find it. I like the idea. Biomes around Jool can be a good addition, anbd it improves KSP educational value if done properly. Also: Source: Image from the English wikipedia page about saturns hexagon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn%27s_hexagon

Hey, I wondered, is the project still going?

Maybe here you can find a solution: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/20-add-on-discussions/ .

I wanted to take some time to answer these questions, as I think they are indeed very important to answer and solve. The biggest problem is uniqueness. That problem can be solved by looking at it differently. Instead of taking the picture as a whole, you look at individual pieces. With any camera part, upon clicking the button for doing the experiment, the game will generate a picture the picture of what the camera was looking at. It will then look the individual pieces that make up the picture, and calculate the science and/or reputation for each of those things. The sum of all those things will be the ultimate yield. This will solve the issue as photographing the same "piece" will yield, just as any other science experiment, diminishing returns. You can kill multiple birds with one stone, but you cannot kill one bird twice, so to speak. As all of these pieces are balanced, so that the end sum is not ridiculously high, taking one more picture of something you've already photographed a zillion times to get that last bit of things out, will be a very unattractive thing. At the point taking pictures of this body becomes boring, you will have pretty much exhausted most of the "pieces", and those left undiscovered gain such a small amount that it is just not worth it. What those pieces are, depends on your camera. From what I've seen suggested the community would like three different types of camera's. Telescopes, that look at the deep skies for planets, asteroids and things outside the Kerbol system, and which gather data over time. Camera's, that you bring to bodies to take instant pictures. And crew held camera's, which make pictures from a pod window and have to be operated by a crew. In all three examples, a hype-factor should play a role. This determines for every "photo piece" how new and important it is to either the scientific community (science) or the public and economy(reputation and contextual contracts). As for the telescope parts, the score should depend on: The shutter time (You need a lot of data when looking in space, which is mostly empty.). Whatever it has seen, or not seen. Other specifications that belong to the type of telescope. Whether the view is blocked by anything. The camera parts, the scoring depends on: Points of interest (recycled area waypoints from the contract system. they are always hidden, and only loaded when needed.) that describe interesting geology, easter eggs and other stuff. They have some info that tell the game whether they are on the picture or not (distance and size, clouds, things blocking the view, night/day). The amount and type of bodies that are on the picture. Something in any way, shape or form to differentiate between eclipses, rises/sets and "just two bodies on one picture". (Apparent distance) any body-wide natural phenomenon captured (aurora's, magnetic fields, solar flares) the type of light your camera is sensitive for (this is also responsible for having aurora's, magnetic fields and solar flares visible) How sharp the surface appears to be and how much you can see of it (things blocking the view, night, clouds and atmosphere, distance to the surface) Crew-held camera's would probably be similar to the "normal" camera's. As for the question about informing the player. The end result of any of those rules is that the picture is interpreted in the way a player would. The player doesn't have to know all these rules, as long as he/she/ knows that they work like you'd expect, with the occasional extra mechanic like shutter time. Miscellaneous parts, like the suggestions for an Atmosphere scanner [Veeltch] and a radar mapper [tater] have their own needs.

As long as these represent natural phenomena, that could be a nice idea. Could also spark contracts saying "That patch of the sky looks particularly bright recently, maybe you should take a look at it."

Then you'd need to combine it with the idea of having failures in experimental parts idea from a few weeks ago. That could be an interesting one. Although I like the funds vs science tradeoff at recovery better.

I fully agree with this. Feedback is a very valuable -and sometimes invaluable- way of learning, especially in KSP.